tort law negligence (oxford (c))
TRANSCRIPT
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 1/25
Negligence and Nuisance 13
Why does it matter?
Torts law is particularly relevant to businesses as they need to be aware of the extent of
their potential liabilities to workers, visitors to business premises, other businesses, andto the general public. This extends to ensuring safe systems of work exist and appropri-
ate insurance is maintained. Further, businesses need to be in a position where they can
ensure they can exclude liability for advice provided in the course of their business. The
chapters in this part of the book demonstrate the potentially significant sums involved
in tort actions, and the potential costs involved in not taking adequate steps in their
prevention.
Learning outcomes
Following reading this chapter you should be in a position to:
understand the meaning of the term ‘tort’ (• 13.1–13.5)
differentiate between liability in contract and liability in tort (• 13.5)
explain the three tests to establish liabili ty in negligence (• 13.6–13.6.3.2)
explain the facts and the court ’s reasoning in• Donoghue v Stevenson(13.6.1)
identify the defences to a negligence claim (• 13.7–13.7.4)
identify the remedies available in claims of tortious liability (• 13.8)
assess where a business or individual may commit an act of nuisance and avail-•able defences to such actions (13.9–13.9.2.3).
Key terms
These terms will be used in the chapter and it may be helpful to be aware of what they
mean or refer back to them when reading through the chapter.
Duty of care
The rule that places an obligation to take reasonable care not to injure your
‘neighbour’ or damage property.
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 2/25
NE G L I G E NC E A ND NU I SA NC E254
Nuisance
This is an unlawful interference that prevents an owner/occupier’s enjoyment of his/
her land.
Proximity
The close relationship between the parties to a negligence action which is essential to
establish a duty of care.
Tortfeasor
The party who has committed the tort.
Volenti non fit injuria
The Latin phrase relat ing to a voluntary assumption of risk where a person engages in
an event and agrees to and accepts the inherent risks. If injured, he/she is prevented
from bringing a claim.
13.1 Introduction
Tis is the second topic on the subject o obligations. Whilst the civil law places obligations on
those parties who wish to undertake duties reely and agree to be legally bound via contracts,
torts law imposes the obligation without, necessarily, prior agreement. Te duty is to take
reasonable care and not intentionally or negligently cause harm or damage. ‘orts’1 derives
rom the French word ‘wrong’ and is essentially a civi l wrong that entitles the injured party
to the remedy o compensation. Tis remedy has the aim o placing the victim back into the
position he/she was (as ar as money can) beore the tort was committed.
One o the most important torts is negligence (which may be commonly seen in instances
o personal injury) and this tort is considered rst in the chapter beore acts o private and
public nuisance are addressed.2
13.2 Fault liability
Te law imposes a duty to take reasonable care to not negligently or intentionally cause damage.
Many claims o negligence involve ault liability: someone is at ault and this enables the injured
party to seek compensation or the resultant loss/injury. As such, situations o damage that are
determined ‘acts o God’ will generally not be compensatable as there is no party rom which to
claim. Tis is in contrast to liability in contract that is strict (or example, the retailer is respon-
sible or goods not being o a satisactory quality despite the act that, oen, he/she would have
no way o knowing this or have been personally responsible or the (lack o) quality).
1 It is known as torts law because there are many torts. For example, personal injury is linked with the tort
o negligence; a wrongul intererence with a person’s ownership and quiet enjoyment o his/her property
may constitute one o the torts o nuisance and trespass; damage to reputation may be actionable through the
tort o deamation; a wrongul intererence with commercial interests may result in the tort o passing o;
physically assaulting someone may lead to a claim under the tort o assault and battery; and there exists a tort
o inducing a breach o contract.2 Students who would like to extend their understanding o the topic o torts law are advised to reer to
Steele, J. (2007) ‘ort Law: ext, Cases, and Materials’ Oxord University Press: Oxord.
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 3/25
F A U LT L I A B I L I T Y A N D T H E C O M P E N S AT I O N C U L T U R E 255
Note also that in other situations relevant to this topic, tortious liability may be imposed
in the absence o ault. Under the doctrine o vicarious liability, one person may be held liable
or the torts o another (such as an employer being held liable or the torts o his/her employ-
ees; or the principal being liable or torts o his/her agent). Fault is also removed in claims
under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 where the liability is strict.3
13.3 Fault liability and thecompensation culture
Business Link
There has been much recent debate regarding the increasing ‘compensation culture’ in
the UK, with scare stories of people suing others for seemingly trivial matters, and this
has been exacerbated through the ‘no win, no fee’ services offered by law firms (often
referred to as ‘ambulance chasers’). Despite the excessive manner of these reports, itis arguable that the UK has not developed a compensation culture, and this has been
acknowledged and fears allayed through legislative action, but businesses should con-
tinue to take steps to minimize their staff and customers’ exposure to potential torts.
News reports in the recent past have suggested that the UK is heading towards a compensa-
tion culture where claims or compensation, usually through torts actions, have been brought
against individuals, employers, and local authorities where a person(s) has suered injury or
loss (and this is increasingly moving towards claims in the education sector). Reports rom the
BBC highlighted cases including a woman who was awarded £195,000 in compensation due
to her employers ‘wrecking her job prospects’ through their reusal to provide a reerence; a
woman who sued the company Durex or £120,000 when she became pregnant aer using a
aulty condom; and another claimant who sued4 the holiday company Airtours ollowing injur-
ies she received when on holiday in the Dominican Republic aer a coconut ell on her chest
when she was reclining under a palm tree.5 Tere have been several reasons attributed6 or the
rise in persons seeking compensation, but the two most prominent reasons orwarded have
been the introduction o conditional ee arrangements (the so called ‘no win, no ee’ claims),
whereby lawyers representing claimants do not charge the client unless the claimant ‘wins’
the case (and these ees are generally added to the compensation claimed so the client obtains
100 per cent o the compensation); and secondly, the removal o the restrictions on lawyers
being able to advertise (hence allowing rms to be very aggressive in obtaining clients—just
look at the advertisements currently on television and even in doctors’ surgeries and hospitals7
3 Note that these examples do not constitute an exhaustive list.4 Te claim was eventually settled out o court with a payment o £1,700.5 BBC News 24 ‘Compensation Culture: Who’s to Blame?’ 15 November 2000.6 Including those examples listed, there has been the introduction o ‘class action’ claims, where several
claimants can join their cases and be heard at the same time, rather than requiring each claimant to raise
their case individually.7 Somewhat amusingly, the BBC News 24 website on 28 May 2004 reported that advertisements or claims
management companies regarding medical negligence had been printed on the back o hospital appoint-
ments cards (‘Compensation Culture “Urban Myth”’).
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 4/25
NE G L I G E NC E A ND NU I SA NC E256
regarding clinical negligence). However, it has also been stated that the compensation culture
is a abrication or ‘urban myth’, and does not exist8 and most people would not bring rivolous
claims, nor do they eel in any heightened ear o litigation.9
However, this has not removed all ears o being sued, and research by an insurance brok-
ing and risk management rm Aon in 2004 demonstrated that 70 per cent o the 500 busi-
nesses surveyed considered the compensation culture was placing an unsustainable burden
on industry and that 96 per cent o the respondents blamed the Government or ailing totake action.10 In response to growing concerns within and outside o British business, the
Compensation Act 2006 was passed to codiy existing common law and to inorm the courts
o matters that should be taken into account when determining i a breach o duty to take
reasonable care had taken place. Tis was to be assessed in relation to whether the deendant
had taken steps to meet the standard o care required; and having taken these steps, might
these prevent a desirable activity rom being undertaken or discourage persons rom under-
taking unctions in connection with a desirable activity.11 As such, the Act was created to
prevent situations where an otherwise desirable activity would be stopped due to the ear o
litigation. For example, school trips or pupils involve an element o risk but it also provides
an educational benet that could outweigh the risks. As such, the Compensation Act 2006
was designed to make explicit the rules establishing liability to give greater condence inwhat would lead to a breach o a duty of care. Te Act identies that an apology, an oer o
treatment, or other redress, will not o itsel amount to an admission o negligence or breach
o a statutory duty;12 and it also applies to claims involving a disease relating to exposure
to asbestos (mesothelioma).13 Te Act, urther, provides or regulation o those involved in
claims management services14 and the enorcement o the regulation codes.15
Thinking Point
Do you believe the law has moved in the right direction by enabling people to initiate
tort actions, or do you think the law has developed to enable claims to proceed that
would previously have failed to reach a settlement /hearing? Justify your answer.
13.4 Time limits
Tere exists a limitation period in which claims o negligence must be brought against the
perpetrator o the tort (the tortfeasor). Under the Limitation Act 1980 s. 2, actions in tort
must be brought within six years o the date giving rise to the right o action. Claims or
personal injury, however, must be brought within three years o either the date on which
the tort was committed, or rom when the injury attributable to the torteasor became
known.16
8 Te House o Commons Constitutional Aairs Committee (2006) Tird Report, Session 2005–06, 14
February.9 See also Steele, J. (2007) ‘ort Law: ext, Cases, and Materials’.
10 See Judge, E. (2004) ‘Compensation Culture Hitting Competitiveness o UK PLC’ Te imes, 26 July.11 Section 1. 12 Section 2.13 Section 3. 14 Section 4. 15 Section 7.16 Section 11.
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 5/25
N E G L I G E N C E 257
In the case o a death, where the deceased person’s representatives wish to bring an action
on his/her behal, the claim must be brought within three years o the date o the death, or
three years rom the date on which he/she obtained this knowledge (ss. 11(5) and 12).17
Protection is a lso aorded to minors (under the age o 18), and the time limits above do not
apply until the claimant becomes 18. Tere is also protection to claimants who are suering
a mental disorder, as provided or in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and who are incapable o
managing their aairs. In such a situation the time limits do not apply.
13.5 The distinction between contractualand tortious liability
ortious liability diers rom contractual liability in that the obligations undertaken in con-
tracts are entirely voluntary. No one can be orced into a contract against his/her will and con-
sequently the parties have the ability to be aware o the extent o their liability, and the possible
consequences in the event o breach. In contrast to this, tortious liability is imposed on per-
sons and organizations (sometimes) without their knowledge or the awareness o the potential
extent o this liability.18 Te law sometimes requires compulsory insurance to protect against
claims o liability in negligence or other torts,19 but it may be prudent or businesses to carry
insurance or their property and possessions in the event o claims against them. Do remember
that there may be several claims involving the same scenario, such as a breach o contract claim
and a negligence action (or example, in Grant v Australian Knitting Mills);20 and the scenario
may involve a criminal action and a tort claim (such as an employee in a actory being injured
through the use o dangerous and aulty equipment). Where the claimant has suered a loss and
injury, as in Grant , it is or the claimant to elect to pursue each element o his/her claim.
13.6 Negligence
Business Link
The law requires that those who are deemed to owe others a duty of care act respon-
sibly and take necessary precautions to avoid injury and loss to others. The remedy
17 Note that the House o Lords held that this time limit, or personal injury claims, can be extended where
it would be equitable to do so (Horton v Sadler [2006] UKHL 27).18 For an in-depth consideration and theoretical discussion o how contract and tort liabilities aect in-
dividuals see Coll ins, L. (1967) ‘Interaction between Contract and ort in the Conict o Laws’ International
and Comparative Law Quarterly , Vol. 16, p. 103.19 Employers are required to hold liability insurance to insure against liabil ity or injury or disease to their
employees under the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969; it is also advisable or other
types o liability to be protected against as through Public Liability Insurance or those organizations which
allow visitors onto their property or who deal with the public.20 [1936] AC 85.
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 6/25
NE G L I G E NC E A ND NU I SA NC E258
primarily provided by the law is a damages payment to put the injured party back in the
position he/she was before the tort had taken place—this can prove very expensive for
businesses. Fundamentally to those in business, knowledge of the law and of responsi-
bilities enable positive steps to be made to minimize the risk of negligence claims. When
reading through the cases and judgments that follow, consider whether you would have
acted as the business did, and whether you would have considered that liability would
be imposed by the courts.
A denition o negligence is the breach o a duty to take care, owed in law by the deend-
ant to the claimant, causing the claimant damage.21 In order to establish a successul
claim in negligence, three tests must be satised. Each o these will be discussed in turn
(Figure 13.1).
13.6.1 The duty of care
Beore proceeding to identiy each o the ‘three tests’ necessary to establish a duty o care,it should be noted that these are separated, somewhat articially, to demonstrate how
they appear in the acts o the case and are identied by the courts. o establish liability
in negligence, it must rst be determined that the respondent owed the claimant a duty
to take reasonable care. How this works in practice can be seen in the case o Donoghue
v Stevenson:
21 Although note rom Lord Macmillan in Donoghue v Stevenson that ‘ . . . the categories o negligence are
never closed’.
Figure 13.1 Establishing a Successful Claim in Negligence
The duty
of care
Consequentialdamage
Successfulclaim
Establishing a proximity of relationship between the claimant and defendant• Reasonable foreseeability of loss• It is just and reasonable to impose the duty
• Application of the reasonable man standard
• Exposing the claimant to unreasonable risk of harm (the principle of risk)
• Establishing causation in law• Establishing causation in fact
• Where the above stages have been satisfied, the claimant’s action for damages willsucceed
A breach ofthat duty
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 7/25
N E G L I G E N C E 259
Donoghue v Stevenson22
Facts:
A friend and Mrs Donoghue visited a café in Paisley, Glasgow on 26 August 1928, where
the friend purchased a bottle of ginger beer for Mrs Donoghue. The drink was served in a
dark, stone, opaque bottle and, unknown to the purchaser, the retailer, or Mrs Donoghue,
contained the remains of a snail. This only became apparent when the greater part of the
contents of the bottle had been consumed and the remainder was poured into a glass. At
the sight of the snail, Mrs Donoghue claimed she suffered from shock and severe gastro-
enteritis. On the basis of this illness Mrs Donoghue brought her action for damages against
the manufacturer of the ginger beer (David Stevenson). Mrs Donoghue contended that the
claim should be made against the manufacturer as the ginger beer was bottled by Stevenson,
labelled by him, and he sealed the bottle with a metal cap.
A key element in establishing negligence is the proximity23 between the parties, which led
Lord Atkin to state: ‘You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can
reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neigh-
bour? The answer seems to be—persons who are so closely and directly af fected by my act
that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am direct-ing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.’
Authority for:
In establishing that the defendant owes the claimant a duty to take care, there must be
proximity of relationship between them. This is identified through Lord Atkin’s ‘neighbour
principle’.
Donoghue v Stevenson is the seminal case in the establishment o the tort o negligence.
Te House o Lords determined that the claimant must establish that the deendant owes
the claimant a duty o care, and in establishing this there must be proximity between the
parties. Proximity is the closeness o relationship between the parties that creates the duty
to take care. Here, the manuacturer o a product was held liable or damage sustained by
anyone who could have used, and consumed, its product. Te case established that prox-
imity is not restricted to a close physical ‘closeness’ but can be extended to anyone who
may reasonably be seen as being likely to be aected by the deendant’s actions. Following
Donoghue, proximity has been demonstrated in cases involving inadequate warning signs
which led to injury,24 and has also been used in deeating claims, as in the ollowing case:
Bourhill v Young25
Facts:
Mr Young had been riding his motorbike and collided with a motorcar on 11 October 1938,
in which accident he died. Mrs Bourhill (a ‘pregnant fishwife’) was a passenger on a tram. At
22 [1932] AC 562.23 Heaven v Pender [1883] 11 QBD 503. ‘I one man is near to another, or is near to the property o
another, a duty lies upon him not to do that which may cause a personal injury to that other, or may injure
his property.’24 See Haley v London Electricity Board [1965] AC 778.25 [1943] AC 92.
Donog ue v Stevenson22
Facts:
A friend and Mrs Donoghue visited a café in Paisley, Glasgow on 26 August 1928, where
the friend purchased a bottle of ginger beer for Mrs Donoghue. The drink was served in a
dark, stone, opaque bottle and, unknown to the purchaser, the retailer, or Mrs Donoghue,
contained the remains of a snail. This only became apparent when the greater part of the
contents of the bottle had been consumed and the remainder was poured into a glass. At
the sight of the snail, Mrs Donoghue claimed she suffered from shock and severe gastro-
enteritis. On the basis of this illness Mrs Donoghue brought her action for damages against
the manufacturer of the ginger beer (David Stevenson). Mrs Donoghue contended that the
claim should be made against the manufacturer as the ginger beer was bottled by Stevenson,
labelled by him, and he sealed the bottle with a metal cap.
A key element in establishing negligence is the proximity23 between the parties, which led
Lord Atkin to state: ‘You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can
reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neigh-
bour? The answer seems to be—persons who are so closely and directly af fected by my act
that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplat ion as being so affected when I am direct-ing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.’
Authority for:
In establishing that the defendant owes the claimant a duty to take care, there must be
proximity of relationship between them. This is identified through Lord Atkin’s ‘neighbour
principle’.
Bour v oung25
Facts:
Mr Young had been riding his motorbike and collided with a motorcar on 11 October 1938,
in which accident he died. Mrs Bourhill (a ‘pregnant fishwife’) was a passenger on a tram. At
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 8/25
NE G L I G E NC E A ND NU I SA NC E260
the stop she alighted and was in the process of removing her fish-basket when the accident
occurred. It was discovered that Mr Young had been travelling at an excessive speed and was
thrown onto the street as a result of the collision, where he died. Mrs Bourhill did not witness
the crash (her view being obstructed by the tram), but became aware of it on hearing the
noise of the impact (she was some 45–50 feet away). Mr Young’s body had been removed
from the scene, and when Mrs Bourhill approached the point of the crash she observed theblood left on the roadway. In her evidence she claimed to suffer damage to her back and ‘very
severe shock to her nervous system’, although she acknowledged that she did not fear for
her own personal safety. The House of Lords held that a motorcyclist owed a duty of care to
other road users and those he could reasonably foresee might be injured by his failure to take
reasonable care, but Mrs Bourhill did not fall into this category as she was not in any area of
potential danger. Mr Young did not owe her a duty of care as it was not foreseeable that she
may be injured in the incident, and there was a lack of proximity between the parties.
Authority for:
For a duty of care to be established, the defendant must have reasonably foreseen that his/
her actions may cause injury or loss to the claimant.
Te case demonstrated how the courts will deal with the issue o proximity o relationship
and the link with orseeability.26 As the courts nd one single denition o ‘proximity’ unreal-
istic (as noted by the Lords in Caparo) the examples provided in these cases enable common
eatures to be drawn and considered or application in similar scenarios. Having established
the test o proximity in identiying where a duty o care existed, the test was extended in a
case involving economic loss. Caparo v Dickman established the threeold test o proximity,
orseeability, and whether it was air, just, and reasonable to impose a duty o care (albeit that
this case was largely decided on its acts rather than a ‘true’ application o legal principle).
Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and Others27
Facts:
Caparo had accomplished a takeover of Fidelity Plc and it began an action against the direct-
ors of that company (Steven and Robert Dickman) claiming a fraudulent misrepresentation,
and an action against its auditors (Touche Ross & Co.) claiming it was negligent in carrying out
an audit of the company.28 The basis of Caparo’s claim was that it began purchasing shares
in Fidelity a few days before the annual accounts had been published and made available to
the shareholders. In reliance on these accounts, it made further purchases of the shares in
order to take over the company, and claimed the auditors owed a duty of care to the share-
holders and any potential investors. The audit had projected Fidelity’s profits unrealistically
high, which Fidelity should have realized; and the share price had fallen significantly, causing
substantial financial loss to Caparo. The House of Lords had to consider whether the audi-
tors did in fact owe Caparo a duty of care. The Lords held that this case involved a negligent
misstatement, but protection in such cases was limited to those who had obtained specific
26 Bourhill v Young is also used when considering the issue o ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ v ictims (see14.4.1
and 14.4.2).27 [1990] 2 AC 605.28 PLCs were required to have an audit as part o their obligations under ss. 236 and 237 o the Companies
Act 1985.
the stop she alighted and was in the process of removing her fish-basket when the accident
occurred. It was discovered that Mr Young had been travelling at an excessive speed and was
thrown onto the street as a result of the collision, where he died. Mrs Bourhill did not witness
the crash (her view being obstructed by the tram), but became aware of it on hearing the
noise of the impact (she was some 45–50 feet away). Mr Young’s body had been removed
from the scene, and when Mrs Bourhill approached the point of the crash she observed theblood left on the roadway. In her evidence she claimed to suffer damage to her back and ‘very
severe shock to her nervous system’, although she acknowledged that she did not fear for
her own personal safety. The House of Lords held that a motorcyclist owed a duty of care to
other road users and those he could reasonably foresee might be injured by his failure to take
reasonable care, but Mrs Bourhill did not fall into this category as she was not in any area of
potential danger. Mr Young did not owe her a duty of care as it was not foreseeable that she
may be injured in the incident, and there was a lack of proximity between the parties.
Authority or:
For a duty of care to be established, the defendant must have reasonably foreseen that his/
her actions may cause injury or loss to the claimant.
Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman and Others27
acts:
Caparo had accomplished a takeover of Fidelity Plc and it began an action against the direct-
ors of that company (Steven and Robert Dickman) claiming a fraudulent misrepresentation,
and an action against its auditors (Touche Ross & Co.) claiming it was negligent in carrying out
an audit of the company.28 The basis of Caparo’s claim was that it began purchasing shares
in Fidelity a few days before the annual accounts had been published and made available to
the shareholders. In reliance on these accounts, it made further purchases of the shares in
order to take over the company, and claimed the auditors owed a duty of care to the share-
holders and any potential investors. The audit had projected Fidelity’s profits unrealistically
high, which Fidelity should have realized; and the share price had fallen significantly, causing
substantial financial loss to Caparo. The House of Lords had to consider whether the audi-
tors did in fact owe Caparo a duty of care. The Lords held that this case involved a negligent
misstatement, but protection in such cases was limited to those who had obtained specific
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 9/25
N E G L I G E N C E 261
advice and used it for a reason made known to the provider of the information. The audit was
a requirement of the Companies Act 1985 and therefore did not impose a duty of care on the
auditors to the shareholders or potential investors. Consequently, Caparo’s claim failed as
there was a lack of proximity between the auditors and Caparo.
Authority for:
The imposition of liability for negligence should only take place where it is ‘just and reason-
able’ to do so. Importantly, as this was a novel case, the law should develop liability in such
cases incrementally and restr ict/l imit the imposition of to whom a duty is owed.
Te issue o proximity has been addressed in Donoghue; oreseeability has been demon-
strated in Caparo as a similar test to that used in contract o whether it should have been ore-
seeable to the deendant what the consequences o his/her action would be and the possible
results; and ‘ air, just, and reasonable’29 is an argument based on public policy.30 It enables the
court the discretion to consider the wider implications o establishing liability and has been
reerred to as the ‘oodgates’ argument. I establishing liability would ‘open the oodgates’
to numerous claims, then the court may decide that the liability should not be imposed. Tecourts also use this requirement to protect potential deendants such as public bodies (the
emergency services, local authorities providing education services and so on) rom excessive
claims and a diminution o public unds.31
Te House o Lords later held in Marc Rich & Co. v Bishop Rock Marine32 that the require-
ment o establishing this ‘threeold’ test would be applicable to novel claims (such as in Caparo).
However, where an accepted duty that had been previously held to exist (such as the duty imposed
on drivers to other road users rom carelessly causing injury), it was unnecessary to subject these
claims to the Caparo threeold test when the question o duty has already been determined.
13.6.2 Breach of the dutyHaving established that the deendant owed the claimant a duty o care, the next step in deter-
mining liability is to establish the deendant’s breach o this duty. Essentially, this means that
the deendant ell below the standard required by law. Te tests outlined below, like the tests
to prove the existence o a duty o care, are guidelines that have been developed through the
courts, rather than an attempt to establish a single set o criteria that will or will not establish
a breach o the deendant’s duty o care. Tey will oen overlap and each draws on elements
o the other, but they are used to demonstrate the issues the courts will consider in attribut-
ing liability.
29 For example, in McFarlane and Another v ayside Health Board [2000] 2 AC 59 the House o Lords held
that it would not be just and reasonable to hold the Health Board or the doctor responsible or the costs o rais-
ing a child ollowing a ailed vasectomy operation. However, damages may be awarded or the pain and losses
attributed to the pregnancy. See also the imposition o an award or the ‘legal wrong’ committed in simi lar
situations (Rees v Darlington Memorial Hospital [2003] UKHL 52).30 Te Lords accepted the arguments presented by auditor’s legal team that: ‘three elements are needed or
a duty o care to exist: there must be reasonable orseeability, a close and direct relationship o “proximity”
between the parties and it must be air, just and reasonable to impose liability’.31 Although compare the judgments in John Munroe (Acrylics) Ltd v London Fire Brigade & Civil Deence
Authority [1996] 3 WLR 988 and Kent v Gri ths and Others (1998) Te imes, 23 December.32 [1995] 3 All ER 3307.
advice and used it for a reason made known to the provider of the information. The audit was
a requirement of the Companies Act 1985 and therefore did not impose a duty of care on the
auditors to the shareholders or potential investors. Consequently, Caparo’s claim failed as
there was a lack of proximity between the auditors and Caparo.
Authority or:
The imposition of liability for negligence should only take place where it is ‘just and reason-
able’ to do so. Importantly, as this was a novel case, the law should develop liability in such
cases incrementally and restr ict/l imit the imposition of to whom a duty is owed.
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 10/25
NE G L I G E NC E A ND NU I SA NC E262
13.6.2.1 The ‘reasonable man’ standard
Breach o the deendant’s duty o care will oen ollow his/her ailure under the ‘reasonable
man’ test. In Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co.,33 Alderson B commented that ‘Negligence
is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations
which ordinarily regulate the conduct o human aairs, would do, or doing something which
a prudent and reasonable man would not do.’ In extracting principles rom the statement, the
ollowing actors will be considered by the courts:
13.6.2.2 Exposure to risk of harm
Te claimant, in asserting that the deendant has breached his/her duty o care, will, as a gen-
eral rule, have to demonstrate to the court’s satisaction that the deendant committed the
breach. Tis places the burden o proo on the claimant.
Te principle o exposing the claimant to unreasonable risk o harm:1 Essentially, the more
likely it would be that the deendant’s action would lead to injury or loss, the more likely
it would be that he/she had breached his/her duty to take reasonable care. In Brett v
University o Reading 34 Mr Brett died as the result o contracting mesothelioma, attrib-
uted to working with asbestos. A claim was brought against one o his ormer employers,as during his employment as a clerk o works, he oversaw the demolition o the old li-
brary, which it was considered in evidence, probably caused asbestos to be released, des-
pite the University hiring competent contractors to undertake the works. Te claimant
could not demonstrate that the University was negligent in the hiring o the contractors
or that the University had breached any statutory duty. Further, the Court o Appeal
held that it could not be proved that this employer, rather than others, had led to Mr
Brett contracting the disease, and as it had taken reasonable precautions to ensure his
saety, the claim or damages had to ail.
Risk is accepted as part o most day-to-day activities (such as merely getting up in
the morning and travelling to work), but it is the unreasonable exposure to risk that will
establish a potential breach.35
Te social utility and desirability o the deendant’s actions:2 O course when consider-
ing the risk the claimant was exposed to, the courts have to perorm a balancing act
between this risk and any benet or valuable objective that the deendant was attempt-
ing to achieve.
Watt v Hertordshire County Council 36 identied that i an action is desirable and o
social importance, the risks that correspond with the actions may be acceptable, whereas
in other situations it would have led to unreasonable levels o risk (and damages in neg-
ligence). In the case, a reman was injured by a jack that was not correctly secured in the
lorry that was used to transport it to the scene o an emergency. Te lorry had not been
designed to carry such a large piece o equipment. However, the jack was required as it
was used to save the lie o a woman who had been trapped ollowing an incident with amotor vehicle. Per Denning LJ: ‘It is well settled that in measuring due care you must bal-
ance the risk against the measures necessary to eliminate the risk. o that proposition
there ought to be added this: you must balance the risk against the end to be achieved.’
Consequently, the Court o Appeal held that there was no nding o liability on the
Council because o the wider implications o the risk undertaken.
33 [1856] 11 Ex Ch 781. 34 [2007] EWCA Civ 88.35 See Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367. 36 [1954] 1 WLR 835.
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 11/25
N E G L I G E N C E 263
Te cost and practicality o measures to minimize the risk o harm:3 Likewise in point
2 above, the courts will assess the risk aced by the claimant in terms o the deend-
ant’s actions in light o the costs involved in attempting to minimize or remove these
altogether.
In4 Latimer v AEC Ltd 37 a actory had suered ooding ollowing a period o heavy rain
with the consequent mixing o the water with oil that was present on the actory’s oor.
In response, the owners o the actory (AEC) spread sawdust on the oor. However, MrLatimer slipped on a patch o oil that had not been covered and sustained injury. Mr
Latimer claimed damages under negligence or his injuries but the claim ailed as AEC
had taken all reasonable precautions to minimize the risk o injury. Mr Latimer had
argued that the oor was unsae and AEC should have closed the actory down until it
could be made sae. However, the House o Lords elt this would have been dispropor-
tionate to the risk. In Bolton v Stone, a woman, standing outside her house, was struck by
a cricket ball hit rom an adjourning cricket club. She sought to recover damages or her
injuries but the House o Lords held that the club had reasonably minimized the risk o
harm through erecting a ence some 17 eet high at the perimeter o the ground. Te act
that balls had only ever been struck over the ence six times in 28 years led to the judg-
ment that the claimant had not been exposed to an unreasonable risk o harm.
Te case reected on the main elements to consider when assessing a breach o duty o 5
care. Tose are:
– the ‘reasonable man’ standard;
– the principle o risk (exposure to unreasonable risk o harm);
– the social utility and desirability o the deendant’s actions; and
– the cost/practicality o the measures to reduce the risk o harm.
Te case is useul when identiying i a breach o the duty o care has occurred. It is
important to note that the courts will apply the ‘reasonable man’ test objectively, there
is no allowance to be made or lack o experience/intelligence. In Nettleship v Weston38
Mr Nettleship gave driving lessons to Miss Weston, who was a careul learner. However,
on the third lesson Miss Weston ailed to straighten ollowing a le turn and drove into
a street lamp, which led to Mr Nettleship breaking his kneecap. Miss Weston was con-
victed o driving without due care and attention, and Mr Nettleship brought an action
or negligence due to his injuries. Te Court o Appeal held that the act that the driver
was a learner was no deence to the negligence action; the test applied to a learner was the
same, objective test, as applied to a careul driver.
Te shortcomings o others must be taken into account by the deendant;39 and
there is an obligation to display appropriate levels o skill. In Bolam v Friern Hospital
Management Committee,40 Mr Bolam sustained ractures o the acetabula during the
course o electro-conclusive therapy treatment administered whilst he was a voluntary
patient at the deendants’ hospital. Mr Bolam initiated a damages action against the
hospital alleging that the deendants were negligent in ailing to administer any relaxant
37 [1953] 3 WLR 259.38 [1971] 3 WLR 370.39 A practical example would be when driving a car in a residential area during school holidays. Appropri-
ate speed would have to be maintained, even i this was slower than the legal speed limit, as children may be
playing in the street, they may run out rom behind parked vehicles, and they may not appreciate the danger
o traf c on the road as a driver should.40 [1957] 1 WLR 582.
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 12/25
NE G L I G E NC E A ND NU I SA NC E264
drug prior to the passing o the current through his brain, and they had ailed to warn
him o the risks involved in the treatment. Te hospital produced expert witnesses who
each agreed that there was a rm body o medical opinion opposed to the use o relaxant
drugs. Further, it was the practice o the deendants’ doctors not to warn their patients o
the risks o the treatment (which they believed to be small) unless asked. Te High Court
held that even i a warning as to the result o the treatment was provided, this would not
have aected the outcome o the case, and the hospital had complied with proessionalstandards. Tereore, the claim ailed and the hospital was not negligent.
Te ailure o Miss Stone to establish a breach o duty that prevented her success-
ul claim can be compared with the case o Miller v Jackson.41 Tis case also involved
a cricket ground (the Lintz Cricket Club) in County Durham, whose Chairman, Mr
Jackson, was sued or negligence (and another tort action under nuisance) by Mr and
Mrs Miller. Mr Miller had bought his house in the summer o 1972, and the garden was
only 102 eet rom the centre o the cricket ground. Mr Miller claimed that cricket balls
were struck rom the club into his garden which had caused damage to his property, and
were so intrusive that he and his wie spent time away rom the property during matches,
and would not enter the garden or ear o being hit by stray cricket balls. Tis was des-
pite a six-oot concrete wall at the end o the garden, and the cricket ground erecting aence o 14 eet nine inches (the ence could not be made higher due to stability prob-
lems). In 1975, six balls went over the ence into the neighbouring houses; in 1976 nine
balls went over the ence and thereore in the rst case the court held that there had been
a breach o the cricket club’s duty to take reasonable care.
Situations also exist where the most likely explanation or an accident/injury to the
claimant is that the deendant must have been negligent. Here, the burden o proo
is reversed and the onus is on the deendant to demonstrate that he/she was not neg-
ligent. Tis is known as res ipsa loquitur 42 and it will apply where the event that had
caused the claimant loss was within the control o the deendant; and the event would
not have occurred had the deendant exercised proper care and attention.43 In Drake v
Harbour ,44
the claimant sought damages or the alleged negligent rewiring o her prop-erty that had led to re damage. Albeit that the claimant did not have positive or scien-
tic proo that the poor rewiring had led to the re, the Court o Appeal held that what
was required was a matter o judgement in each case having considered all o the avail-
able evidence. Te evidence provided by the deendant, on the balance o probabilities,
regarding alternative causes o the re were improbable and where, as in this case, it
was demonstrated that the deendant was negligent and the loss sustained was consist-
ent with such negligence, it was not necessary or the claimant to positively prove the
exact and technical reason. Te court is entitled to iner the loss as caused by the proven
negligence.
A private duty to take reasonable care is not, however, derived rom a, wider, statutory
duty. In Gorringe v Calderdale MBC ,
45
the Council had a statutory obligation to main-tain the roads and ensure saety under the Highways Act 1980. Te claimant in the case
had caused an accident whilst driving along a country road by driving too ast towards
the brow o a hill and when she could not navigate the turn, colliding with a bus, as a con-
sequence suering severe injuries. Te claimant’s argument was that the Council had
the responsibility or protecting the users o the highway and in this respect, it should
have highlighted the danger o the particular road through signage such as marking
41 [1977] 3 WLR 20.42 ranslated as ‘the acts speak or themselves’. 43 Ward v esco Stores [1976] 1 WLR 810.44 [2008] EWCA Civ 25. 45 [2004] UKHL 15.
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 13/25
N E G L I G E N C E 265
the word ‘SLOW’ on the road beore the hill. As such, the claimant contended that this
public duty created a private duty to the users o the road, enabling her claim to succeed.
Te court held that this did not impose such a duty on a local authority, as a private duty
could not in this sense ‘emerge’ rom a wider public duty. Te Council had not taken any
positive action in the accident and hence the claim ailed.
As noted in section 13.3, the enactment o the Compensation Act 2006 has had the
eect o restraining the ‘compensation culture’46 that was alleged to have crept into theEnglish legal system. Te courts would expect claimants to have been vigilant in protect-
ing themselves and to appreciate obvious risks. Tis is not to say that it removes the legal
obligations imposed on the deendant, but it has, particularly since the Compensation
Act 2006, attempted to introduce a balance between the ability o claimants to seek dam-
ages or losses, and protection o those involved in providing desirable activities.
13.6.3 Consequential damage
An essential component or a successul negligence claim is that the claimant has suered
loss; this loss must be o a type recognized by the law; and there must be a causal link be-tween the breach and the loss suered (consequential loss). For example, where an out- o-
town shopping mall is built, the eects o this may be to cause economic damage to shops
in the local town (as occurred when the Meadowhall development was built in Shef eld).
However, despite this damage to their business through lost prots, the law does not allow the
injured shop owners to bring a claim or damages against the developer o the shopping mall/
the shopkeepers or any nancial losses. Other torts exist that may enable a claim where the
claimant has not suered any damage. In claims o trespass, or example, the court will oen
award nominal damages even where no losses have been sustained.
13.6.3.1 Causation in fact
Te court will examine the acts o the case and ascertain whether the deendant had causedor contributed to the claimant’s injury or suering. A test developed by the Court o Appeal
in the case o Cork v Kirby Maclean47 is the ‘but or’ test. Tis test was dened in the ollow-
ing way: ‘I the damage would not have happened but or a particular ault, then that ault
is the cause o the damage—i it would have happened just the same, ault or not ault, the
ault is not the cause o damage.’ Tis can be demonstrated in the later case o Barnett v
Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee,48 where three watchmen sought
medical attention ollowing a bout o vomiting. Te on-duty nurse consulted a doctor, who
advised the watchman to go home and seek advice rom his own doctor the ollowing morn-
ing. However, later in the day the man died, which was attributed to arsenic poisoning. A
claim was brought against the hospital or the negligence o the doctor in ailing to examine
the watchman, but this ailed. Te watchman had such a high concentration o arsenic inhis system that he would have died regardless o any intervention, such as administering
an antidote, even i his condition had been diagnosed in a doctor’s examination. Tereore,
there was a duty to take care, and this had been breached, but as no consequential damage
was present the claim ailed.
46 See Mullender, R. (2006) ‘Negligence Law and Blame Culture: A Critical Response to a Possible Prob-
lem’ Proessional Negligence, Vol. 22, p. 2; and Herbert, R. (2006) ‘Te Compensation Act 2006’ Journal o
Personal Injury Law, Vol. 4, p. 337.47 [1952] 2 All ER 402. 48 [1969] 1 QB 428.
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 14/25
NE G L I G E NC E A ND NU I SA NC E266
13.6.3.2 Causation in law
Te deendant is not liable or every consequence o his/her wrong. I there is some inter-
vening act that causes the damage to the claimant then the (rst) deendant will not be held
responsible in negligence. I the damage sustained was too remote, then it would be unrea-
sonable to hold the deendant responsible.
Remoteness o damage:• Remoteness o damage involves the test o reasonable oreseeabil-ity. I the reasonable man could not oresee the consequences o the action, then the claim
will be deeated. Te case o Overseas ankships (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co.
Ltd (Te Wagon Mound)49 is important in demonstrating the eect o this rule. Here the
deendants were the owners o a ship named Te Wagon Mound and had been negligent
in allowing oil to spill rom the ship into Sydney Harbour. Tere was welding taking place
in the harbour at the time, and the oil had spread into the whar owned by the claimant.
Te claimants stopped the welding, due to the potential risk o a re, and sought clari-
cation as to the danger, but were inormed it was sae to continue their welding activities.
Floating in the harbour at the time was reuse, including cotton, onto which the molten
metal rom the welding ell and which caught re causing the oil on the water to ignite.
Tis re quickly spread, resulting in substantial damage to the claimant’s property, and
led to the action against the owners o Te Wagon Mound. Te Privy Council held that
the deendants were only liable or the oil that had spilled into the harbour and not the
re that had been caused. It could not be reasonably oreseen that the oil would have
caught re due to its high ignition point.50
When the claim involves the negligence o the torteasor, the causal link is vital to
impose liability. Tis link (or chain o events) may be broken by a new act (a novus
actus interveniens). I a new act, independent o the deendant’s action, occurs and is
suf ciently independent, it may stop the imposition o liability on the (rst) deendant.
I, however, the action occurs as a consequence o the initial breach by the deendant,
and the actionable event was oreseeable, the deendant will stil l be liable. Foreseeability
can be seen in the case o Lamb v Camden London Borough Council ,51 where the Council
had caused damage to the water main that had led to Lamb’s house being ooded. Tehouse was uninhabitable and was vacated by Lamb whilst remedial work was carried out.
When the house was le empty, squatters moved in and caused damage. Lamb brought
an action against the Council or its negligence that resulted in this increased damage.
Te Court o Appeal held that the Council was not liable as it was not oreseeable that
the damage would have occurred, and the Council was under no obligation to secure the
property whilst the repairs were being undertaken.
Attempts to mitigate losses will not, in most cases, result in the chain o causation
being broken. In Corr v IBC Vehicles Ltd 52 the claimant was the wie o a man who had
committed suicide ollowing injuries sustained during an accident at work in a actory. Te
employer had agreed that it had breached its duty o care (and statutory duty) towards the
employee, and the employee had suered post-traumatic stress and depression, leadingto his suicide six years aer the accident. Te Court o Appeal held that the depression
suered by the employee was oreseeable, and that it was urther oreseeable that severe
depression may result in suicide. Tereore, the claim was successul as the employee’s
49 [1961] 2 WLR 126.50 Compare this decision with Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] 2 WLR 779.51 [1981] 2 WLR 1038. 52 [2006] EWCA Civ 331.
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 15/25
D E F E N C E S T O A C L A I M O F N E G L I G E N C E 267
suicide did not break the chain o causation between the deendant’s negligence and the
consequences o the suicide. Te House o Lords subsequently upheld this decision.53
Te eggshell skull rule:• Tere exists an obligation to take appropriate care to avoid caus-
ing damage that may lead to a negligence claim. However, there is also an obligation to
‘take your victim as you nd them’. Tis principle is known as the ‘eggshell skull’ rule and
means that i the victim has a pre-existing condition that is exacerbated by the act o neg-
ligence, insoar as the damage is one which the law recognizes, there is no deence to claimthat another person would not have been so badly injured. Tis can be seen in the case
o Smith v Leech Brain & Co.,54 where a workman employed by Leech Brain had been hit
on his lip by molten metal whilst welding work was taking place. He suered a relatively
minor burn, which was expected and clearly oreseeable. However he had a pre-cancerous
skin condition. Tis was not known to anyone but was triggered by the burn he received,
and he died three years later o the cancer. Smith’s widow claimed against the employer,
and even though the burn would not have caused the death o most victims, the eggshell
skull rule was invoked and consequently Leech Brain were held liable in negligence.
Te concept has also been applied to cases o psychiatric injuries. 55 I the reasonable
man would have suered nervous shock, and the claimant’s disposition exacerbates the
injury he/she has actually suered, then he/she will be able to claim or this greater injury,and not be reduced to the injury that would have been suered by the reasonable man.
Lane, J in Malcolm v Broadhurst 56 described it as the ‘eggshell personality’.
13.7 Defences to a claim of negligence
Business Link
In the event of a claim of negligence being made against a business, the business may
wish to mount a defence. Defences to negligence claims may be complete defences
whereby the business asserts it has no liability at all, or they may be partial defences
where the business accepts some liability for what occurred, but asserts that the claim-
ant was also partially responsible (the defendant will still have to pay a percentage of
the award). Avoiding negligence actions in the first instance appears to be the best
solution.
In order to avoid the legal responsibility that a successul negligence claim may provide, the
deendant may attempt to raise a deence, the choice o which depends on the nature o the
action.57 Te most common orms o deence are:
illegality;1
consent;2 58
contributory negligence; and3
necessity.4
53 [2008] UKHL 13. 54 [1962] 2 WLR 148.55 See 14.4. 56 [1970] 3 All ER 508.57 Such as mistake; and ‘privilege’ in cases involving deamation.58 In the Latin: volenti non ft injuria (no actionable injury/no injury is done to a consenting party).
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 16/25
NE G L I G E NC E A ND NU I SA NC E268
13.7.1 Illegality
Where the claimant has committed an illegal act he/she may be prevented rom raising a
negligence action (this is specic to the circumstances o the case). In Ashton v urner 59 the
claimant was unsuccessul in seeking damages against the co-participant who drove the
getaway car ollowing a burglary. Te car crashed and the claimant was seriously injured.It was held that public policy would not allow the perpetrator o a crime to claim com-
pensation against a co-participant or any injuries sustained in the course o the criminal
activities.
However, illegality is a dif cult deence to successully rely upon, especially when in-
volving companies rather than individuals. In Moore Stephens (a frm) v Stone & Rolls Ltd (in
liquidation)60 the House o Lords, in a split 3 to 2 majority, agreed with the Court o Appeal’s
decision to strike out a claim or damages and accepted an illegality deence. Tis was due
to the eective use o the illegality deence by the deendant. Here a company’s liquidator
alleged that its auditors had been negligent in ailing to identiy that the company had been
used to perpetrate a raud. Te claim ailed, and was struck out by the court, as it was being
made by the company itsel (through the liquidator) and was relying on its own illegal actwhen seeking damages. Tis was, in part at least, because the raudulent director was the
‘controlling mind and will’ o the company and hence it would be unair to allow a claim to
succeed where a raudster would benet by claiming against auditors who ailed to detect his/
her own deception.
Te decision in Moore Stephens may be compared with Robert Matthew Gri n v UHY
Hacker Young & Partners (a frm)61 where the High Court reused to strike out a claim
brought by Grif n or proessional negligence against the deendant accountancy rm. Here
the illegality deence ailed. Grif n alleged the deendant negligently ailed to advise him o
an illegal act when a company that he operated went into creditors’ voluntary liquidation.
Grif n had instructed the accountancy rm to advise him on the winding-up o the com-
pany. Following the liquidation, Grif n ormed a new company which took over selling aproduct previously sold by the ormer company. Such an action contravened the Insolvency
Act 1986 s. 21662 and Grif n was convicted o a strict liability oence and ned £1,000. As a
consequence o this conviction, Grif n sustained various nancial losses and he sought dam-
ages to compensate him or the rm’s negligence. Grif n argued that the rm should have
inormed him o the illegality o his actions. Due to the complexity o the illegality deence,
and its requirement o culpability being demonstrated, a ull trial was necessary (particu-
larly here where the oence was o strict l iability). Tis would allow these issues to be ul ly
explored beore any conclusion could be drawn as to the likelihood o the success o Grif n
deeating the illegality deence.
13.7.2 Consent
Consent is a complete deence to an action in tort but is closely linked with the partial deence
o contributory negligence. Te deence is available where there has been an express agreement
59 [1980] 3 Al l ER 870. 60 [2009] UKHL 39. 61 [2010] EWHC 146 (Ch).62 Tis section protected against ‘phoenix companies’ whereby a director o a company put into insolvent
liquidation was prohibited rom becoming a director o a new company using the same name without giving
notice to the creditors or obtaining the court’s permission.
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 17/25
D E F E N C E S T O A C L A I M O F N E G L I G E N C E 269
to the particular risk o damage or it may be implied rom the conduct o the claimant due
to the actions o volunteering (such as acting as a rescuer) or by accepting entering into a
situation involving risk ( Morris v Murray ).63 Examples o express and implied consent may
be seen where a patient is undergoing surgery and he/she signs a consent orm. Tis express
agreement allows the surgery team to perorm the procedure without committing the tort o
trespass to the person. Express agreement may deeat a claim or damages but these would be
subject to the Unair Contract erms Act 1977.64
Implied consent may be demonstrated in the context o sporting pursuits such as playing
contact sports like rugby,65 or photographing sporting events in close proximity with the par-
ticipants. Blake v Galloway 66 involved horseplay between our teenage riends and led to the
claimant suering injury when a piece o bark struck his eye when the riends were throwing
twigs at one another. It was held by the Court o Appeal that or the deendant to breach his/
her duty o care in unregulated horseplay the deendant’s conduct must amount to reckless-
ness or suf cient carelessness or error o judgement.
Te deence o consent is not available simply because a party (typically, in a business con-
text, an employee) is aware o the risk o injury at the workplace, and continues to carry out
his/her duties.67 Te courts will not imply consent in such circumstances but will require an
outward sign o consent in relation to the inherent risk. Te deence is also unlikely to besuccessul in situations where the claimant has taken action to prevent harm or perorm a
rescue68 and has been injured in the process. Tis requires the claimant to have acted reason-
ably in the circumstances.69
Volenti may be a deence in employment situations where a deliberate act has been under-
taken against the express orders o the employer. In ICI v Shatwell 70 the claimant and a col-
league, qualied shot-rers, made a test o an electrical circuit or ring explosives without
taking the appropriate cover. Tey were injured and a claim was made or damages. Te
House o Lords held that this enabled a complete deence by the employer, on both vicarious
liability by one claimant and breach o a statutory duty by the other, as they had agreed to take
this action knowing the danger. Te action was contrary to the employer’s instructions and
statutory regulations, thereore the claim had to ail.
13.7.3 Contributory negligence
Section 1(1) o the Law Reorm (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 provides:
Where any person suffers damage as the result par tly of his own fault and partly of the fault
of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by rea-
son of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect
thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard
to the claimant’s share in the responsibility for the damage.
63 [1990] 3 Al l ER 801. 64 See 11.5.65 Note, however, that merely participating in a regulated, physical sport such as rugby does not neces-
sarily mean that the participant agrees to suer injury and not seek a remedy. See Condon v Basi [1985] 1
WLR 866 (a person injured whilst playing ootball) and Caldwell v Fitzgerald [2001] EWCA Civ 1054 (a jockey
unseated by a rival).66 [2004] EWCA Civ 814.67 See the House o Lords decision in Smith v Baker & Sons [1891] AC 325.68 Particularly when this involves some psychiatric injury—see Chadwick v BRB [1967] 1 WLR 912.69 Haynes v Harwood [1935] 1 KB 146. 70 [1964] 3 WLR 329.
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 18/25
NEGLIGENCE AND NUISANCE270
Contributory negligence is a partial defence71 to a claim where injury has been caused and
the claimant seeks damages. It is not only applicable to claims of negligence but is applicable
where there is ‘fault’72 (with the exception to the torts of conversion and deceit). Contributory
negligence is only applicable where the claimant was (at least in some part) responsible for
his/her damage. A most common example of the defence of contributory negligence is where
a person has been involved in an accident whilst driving, and he/she was not wearing a seat
belt, or had failed to secure a crash helmet whilst riding a motorcycle. 73 In the event that thecourts hold the damage was the other driver’s fault, the injured party who has suered sub-
stantial injury, when he/she would not have sustained such a level of injury had he/she been
wearing a seat belt, wi ll have contributed to his/her own injury. is provides the court with
an option to determine at what level of contribution the claimant was responsible, and can
reduce any damages awarded. Guidance was provided in Froom v Butcher .74 Where injur-
ies would have been altogether prevented by wearing the seat belt, the damages should be
reduced by 25 per cent. Where the injuries sustained would have been ‘a good deal less severe’
the reduction should be 15 per cent.
In contributory negligence, the claimant is referred to as having ‘contributed to his/her
own misfortune’ and if he/she has been at fault in any activit ies that have led to his/her injury,
then the court will reect this in the damages awarded. e Court of Appeal has also heldthat the claimant may even be entitled to succeed in an action for damages where he/she is 60
per cent liable for his/her injuries.75
13.7.4 Necessity
A defence may be available to an action for negligence where the tortfeasor had acted in a way
so as to prevent a greater harm occurring. To be successful the defendant must demonstrate
that there was imminent danger to a person or to property and the actions taken were rea-
sonable in the circumstances. ese are subjective tests that will be assessed by the court (see
Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd v Southport Corporation).76
13.8 Remedies
e remedies that may be awarded for successful claims of tortious conduct include damages
and injunctions. e aim of damages is to place the injured party, as far as money can, in the
position he/she was before the tort was committed (i.e. compensatory). Damages for personal
injury suered may incorporate any direct losses incurred such as loss of earnings, medical
expenses, travel expenses (such as not being able to drive and having to make alternative
travel arrangements) and so on. Further losses that may be compensatable include damages
for pain and suering, loss of amenity and so on. ese damages are not subject to taxation.
71 Following the enactment of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 (before this contribu-
tory negligence was a full defence).72 e Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 s. 4.73 Capps v Miller [1989] 1 WLR 839, where the claimant’s damages were reduced by 10 per cent by the
Court of Appeal.74 [1975] 3 WLR 379. 75 Green v Bannister [2003] EWCA Civ 1819.76 [1955] AC 218; [1956] 2 WLR 81.
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 19/25
N U I S A N C E 271
Where the tortious act involves no real loss to the claimant (such as in trespass to land where
no loss or damage has occurred) the court may award nominal damages.
Where the injured party has died as a result of the tort the claim for damages is dier-
ent from those above.77 If the deceased had been nancial ly supporting his/her family, then
the dependants may claim for the lost earnings. e claim will also incorporate the funeral
expenses. Further, the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 provides that spouses, and the parents of a
deceased minor, may make a statutory claim of £11,800.78
In terms of damage to property, the damages awarded will be to compensate the claim-
ant for loss, and this wil l involve the cost of restoration and may involve an element of com-
pensation where a replacement of the goods/property was di cult to achieve. Awards of
damages are subject to a requirement for the injured party to mitigate his/her losses where
this is reasonable (even where the mitigation leads to an increase in the losses sustained).
Injunctions may be awarded at the discretion of the court and will involve a court order
requiring the subject to stop committing the tort. ere are a number of tools to provide
injunctive relief, which will be awarded depending upon the requirement of the part icular
tortious act. A prohibitory injunction requires that the defendant ceases the action that is
causing the tort; and a mandatory injunction requires the defendant to act to prevent the
tort being committed. e claimant may also wish to obtain an interim injunction to pre- vent a tort being committed and any (further) damage being sustained until the case comes
to court. e power of injunctions, as was outlined in the contract chapters, is that it is a
court order, and failure to comply constitutes a contempt of court that may lead to a ne or
imprisonment.
13.9 Nuisance
When a person unlawfully interferes with another’s land, or the quiet enjoyment of the land,
then the innocent party may have a claim under the tort of nuisance. In this respect, the claimis of private nuisance as it is concerned with private parties. e reason why this is important
for businesses is because the nature of the oence is in creating a nuisance to those aected
by it. By way of example, a business may have a manufacturing plant that produces rubber
tyres. e business is not unlawful, the activity of producing rubber tyres is not unlawful, but
if it makes unreasonable noise, smoke, vibrations and so on, then these may be considered
unlawful as they could aect another’s use of his/her land. In order to bring a successful
claim of nuisance the following features must be present:
e interference aects the enjoyment of land/premises and this action may be brought•
by a person with an equitable interest in it; a tenant;79 or a person with exclusive posses-
sion of land but with no title to it.80
ere must be an element of damage associated with the nuisance. e term ‘damage’ in•this area of law is not restricted to physical loss or damage, but can amount to the claim-
ant losing his/her enjoyment of the premises.81 e law has to balance competing interests
77 See the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934.78 Section 1A(3).79 Hunter v Canary Wharf [1997] AC 655.80 Foster v Warblington UDC [1906] 1 KB 648. 81 Leeman v Montagu [1936] 2 All ER 1677.
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 20/25
NE G L I G E NC E A ND NU I SA NC E272
when dealing with claims o nuisance, the right or the owner/occupier o land to quiet
enjoyment o the property, and the business that has to make some noise/disruption in
the processing o the product. Te courts will attempt to strike this balance by looking
at the unreasonableness o the deendant’s behaviour, taking into account such actors as
the position o the premises that is causing the nuisance, when it is being conducted, or
what duration the nuisance is caused, and what steps have been taken to minimize the
disruption. For this reason, many such businesses have located themselves in industrialestates where their activities are unlikely to cause a nuisance in the same way that they
would do in a residential area or in the centre o a busy city.
It must be noted that the motives o the deendant are oen relevant considerations in•
assessing nuisance, and as such, where the deendant has deliberately acted to cause a
disturbance, the court will be more likely to hold this action as a nuisance.82
Te court will look towards the reasonable oreseeability o the deendant’s action in de-•
termining whether a nuisance has been committed. In Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern
Counties Leather 83 the House o Lords held that exercising all reasonable care not to cause
a nuisance may not, o itsel, remove liability rom the deendant. However, they continued
that deendants would only be liable or damage that could have been reasonably oreseen.
Unusually sensitive (hypersensitive) claimants will not generally succeed in an action or•
nuisance where another person would not have been adversely aected.
Thinking Point
How does the doctrine of nuisance, and the sensitivity of the claimant, reconcile with
the eggshell rule in liability in negligence and for psychiatric injury? What justifications
can you make for the differences in approach between nuisance and negligence in this
respect?
13.9.1 Defences to a nuisance claim
Deences exist where: a claimant has alleged a nuisance and the deendant can point to a
statutory authority, the consent o the claimant, or where the act has continued or over 20
years.
13.9.1.1 Statutory authority
Where a statute authorizes an act that is then subject to a claim o nuisance, the courts will
assess whether the claim o nuisance is able to proceed. However, simply because a statutegives a right to perorm some action, does not remove potential liability o the deendant.
In Allen v Gul Oil Refning Ltd 84 a statute was passed to build an oil renery on land to
ensure a supply o oil was available, and this was in the public interest. In the building o the
renery, and its operation, local residents complained o the noise and smell o the activities.
Te House o Lords held that no nuisance had been caused as the statute required that the
82 Christie v Davey [1893] 1 Ch 316. 83 [1994] 2 AC 264.84 [1981] AC 1001.
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 21/25
N U I S A N C E 273
oil renery be built and operated, rather then merely giving the right or the erection and
operation o such a venture.
13.9.1.2 Consent
I a party consents to a nuisance, then he/she is unlikely to succeed in an action. Tis is a com-
plete deence i the deendant can establish that the injured party had accepted the danger
o the noise, smell, vibration, or other nuisance, having been aware o its existence. Tis is agrey area, as merely occupying land in the knowledge o a nuisance will not establish an e-
ective deence o consent. It is the will ingness to accept the possibility o the nuisance that
is the key element.
13.9.1.3 Prescription
Here, a deence is available where the nuisance has been committed or over 20 years without
complaint. It is important that the nuisance has been committed or 20 years, rather than
simply the carrying out o that activ ity or the period o time.85
13.9.2 Remedies in nuisanceTe main remedies provided in claims o nuisance are a damages action, and an injunction
to prevent the nuisance being committed in the uture.
13.9.2.1 Damages
Te claim in nuisance, as opposed to negligence where damage/loss has been sustained, may
not have actually caused any physical loss. As such, the claim is generally concerned with the
loss o the enjoyment o the land that the claimant has suered, or in terms o any devalu-
ation o the land. Tat is not to say that there will be no claim or physical loss, and indeed in
Cambridge Water Co. v Eastern Counties Leather , the deendant had used solvents that had
spilled onto the oor, seeped through the ground, and contaminated the claimant’s water ina borehole. Tereore, as long as the damage is o a type recognized in law, and it was oresee-
able, then damages may be awarded or losses suered.
13.9.2.2 Injunctions
Tese are a particularly eective mechanism to prevent the deendant rom continuing the
nuisance. Injunctions are equitable remedies, used at the discretion o the courts, and in
cases o nuisance, may be used in addition to, or instead o, a damages award. When an in-
junction is granted, it is usually suspended to provide the deendant with an opportunity to
rerain rom urther acts o nuisance.
13.9.2.3 Abatement
Tis is an (exceptional) remedy enabling the injured party to take action to stop the nuisance.
It is allowed where to initiate a legal action may be inappropriate, or where immediate action
is required. Tis is commonly seen where an owner o land lops the trees on a neighbour’s
property. As long as the injured party does not have to go onto the neighbour’s land, and he/
she, in this example, cut only the trees interering with his/her land, and returns the trees that
have been cut, then this will be an acceptable remedy.
85 Sturges v Bridgman [1879] 11 ChD 852.
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 22/25
NE G L I G E NC E A ND NU I SA NC E274
Conclusion
The chapter has considered the torts of negligence and nuisance. Claims of negligence in-
volve the three tests of duty of care; breach of that duty; and consequential damage. Having
established these, the courts will then consider the level of damages to be awarded, having
taken into account any defences asserted, and the vulnerability of the victim. Nuisance pro-
tects the claimant from unlawful interference with his/her property and is a significant factor
for businesses running manufacturing/industrial processes. The next chapter discusses
equally relevant and important torts to businesses (that can involve very significant claims),86
including liability for economic loss in negligence; negligent misstatements; and the liability
for psychiatric losses.
Summary of main points
Tortious liability
Liability is imposed through the civil law and requires, in certain circumstances, for the•party to take reasonable care not to negligently or intentionally cause harm.
Many torts involve establishing ‘fault’ liability (blame) in order for a claim to proceed.•
Exceptions to this general rule include vicarious liability and claims under the Consumer
Protection Act 1987.
The Limitation Act 1980 outlines the time limits within which actions must be initiated.•
Generally, tort actions must be brought within six years of the date giving rise to the
action and personal injury claims must be made within three years. The time limits do
not begin until a minor reaches the age of majority (18), and further protection is given
to those suffering mental disorders.
Negligence
Negligence involves a breach of a duty to take care, owed in law by the defendant to the•
claimant, causing the claimant damage.
The three elements to substantiate a claim consist of a duty of care; breach of that duty;•
and consequential damage.
Where a duty of care has previously been held to exist, the threefold test from• Caparo
is unnecessary. In other circumstances, the three sub-tests establishing a duty include:
proximity of relationship between the par ties; foreseeability of loss; and whether it is
fair, just, and reasonable to impose the duty.
A breach of duty involves falling below the ‘reasonable man’ standard and exposing the•
claimant to unreasonable risk of harm.
The third element in establishing negligence is assessing the consequential damage•
suffered by the claimant.
86 Such as AD v Binder Hamlyn [1996] BCC 808, where AD claimed damages arising rom their ac-
quisition o Britannia Securities Group Plc on the basis o the negligent audit prepared by Binder Hamlyn.
Te High Court agreed and the sum awarded was £65 mil lion; an even larger claim arose in NRG v Ernst and
Young [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 404 where, whilst the claim or negligence ultimately ailed, the damages action
was or £400 million.
Conc usion
Summary of main points
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 23/25
275
There must exist a causal link between the injury suffered and the breach of duty.•
The damage suffered must be one that is recognized by law.•
Not all claimants have to demonstrate loss/damage. Claims under trespass, for•
example, will often involve the award of nominal damages as no ‘real’ loss has been
sustained.
To assess causation of damage, the courts will use the ‘but for’ test—if the damage•would not have occurred but for the actions of the defendant, then his/her action is the
cause of the damage.
Not every consequence of a defendant’s wrongful action will lead to liabili ty.•
Intervening acts may remove responsibility if the damage is too remote.
The ‘eggshell skull’ rule provides that the defendant must take the claimant as he/•
she finds them. Hence if the claimant had a pre-existing condition exacerbated by the
defendant’s actions, the defendant cannot escape liability by asserting that another
person so affected would not have experienced the same level of damage.
Defences
The most common defences to tort actions are illegality; consent; contributory•
negligence; and necessity.
Illegality may prevent a claim of negligence where the claimant suffered loss or damage•
during the course of performing an illegal act.
Consent provides a complete defence where the injured party has consented to a risk,•
either expressly or through implication.
Contributory negligence is a partial defence where the claimant who has been partially•
at fault for his/her injury (with the defendant being part ly at fault) will have any award of
damages reduced according to his/her level of responsibilit y.
Necessity may provide a defence where the tortfeasor acted to prevent a greater•
harm, insofar as there was imminent danger and his/her actions were reasonable in the
circumstances.
Remedies
Remedies include damages and injunctions.•
Damages awarded for personal injury include compensat ion for direct and indirect•
losses. The aim is to place the injury party in the position he/she was before the tort had
been committed (insofar as money can).
Injunctions are used to prevent the commission of a tort (available at the discretion of•
the courts). Injunctions are issued on the basis of the particular tort and the injunction
may be prohibitory; mandatory; or interim.
Nuisance
Private nuisance involves unlawful interference with another person’s enjoyment of his/•
her land/property.
The claimant must have suffered some form of loss/damage due to the nuisance.•
Where the defendant intended to cause the disturbance, the courts will be more•
inclined to hold that action as nuisance.
S U M M A R Y 275
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 24/25
NE G L I G E NC E A ND NU I SA NC E276
It must have been reasonably foreseeable that loss/damage would have been the result•
of the defendant’s action to enable a damages claim.
There are several defences to a nuisance action including statutory authority, consent,•
and prescription.
The remedies available are damages, injunction, and abatement.•
Summary Questions
Essay Question
1. Cases such as Bolton v Stone and Miller v Jackson provide examples of the different
approaches taken by the judiciary in relation to determining whether a defendant has
breached his/her duty to take reasonable care. Describe the tests used to establish the
negligence of a defendant and explain how the law has developed to make the exercise
of these tests more relevant in the modern era.
2. Critically assess the defences available to a claim of nuisance. Do you feel they are fair or
at least adequate and what suggestions could you make for improvements? Justify your
answer through a critique of the case law.
Problem Questions
1. All Bright Consumables (ABC) Ltd has recently diversified its business into supplying
and fitting quality kitchens and bathrooms. Part of this business involves the company
manufacturing its own tiles and furniture to offer the full bespoke service that it believes
customers want. Dora is employed by ABC Ltd as a wood machinist operating a bench
mounted circular saw. Today, while operating the circular saw Dora caught her right
(dominant) hand in the saw’s blade, severed four fingers and sliced the top off her thumb.
On the day in question, she had worked a 12-hour shift and for the last six hours of her
shift, her supervisor, Abe, asked her to lend her push stick (which she had been told sheshould use for feeding small pieces of wood into the machine) to a colleague. At the t ime
of the accident, she was working on an urgent job which had to be completed that day
for fitting by ABC’s bathroom firm the next day. Dora admitted that while working she
had been distracted and had been chatting animatedly to another colleague.
Consider the negligence liability (if any) of ABC Ltd.
2. Julie is a teacher at a school under the control of Redmount Borough Council. Her duties
include preparing classes, administering examinations and assessment s, and she has to
provide pastoral care to the pupils and care for the pupils when involved in various extra-
curricular activ ities. Recently a new headmistress was appointed to the school. The
headmistress has put into effect a new regime whereby each of the members of staf f are
to be appraised and offered ‘guidance’ on how to meet the minimum standards required
by the new head.
As part of the process Julie was informed that her academic performance could be
stronger and was required to undertake more reading of academic journals. She was
required to prepare at least two staff seminars each academic year where she would
present papers based on her research or critical reflection. Julie has also been told
that she will have to cover for any sick colleagues and therefore must prepare out line
materials in an additional three subject areas in readiness for such an eventuality, and
her responsibilities for the extra-curricular activities are to be increased. All of these
Summar Questions
7/27/2019 tort law negligence (oxford (c))
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tort-law-negligence-oxford-c 25/25
277
requirements have been imposed on her with l ittle or no negotiation and she wil l
not receive any additional pay or gain promotion. They are required if Julie wishes to
continue her employment at the school.
Julie attempts to perform these duties but is struggling to cope with the demands. She
has been working 65 hours per week to accommodate the additional responsibil ities (her
contract of employment only requires 38 hours per week) and she is showing obvious
physical signs of stress. Julie raises the issue of stress, and that she feels bullied, withcolleagues and the headmistress, but is told that she must successfully complete the
work set or her contract will be terminated. Two weeks later Julie was hospitalized due to
the stress and was away from work for one month.
Upon her return to work, the headmistress had promised to reduce the workload of
Julie but this did not happen. Three weeks later Julie suffered a nervous breakdown.
Advise Julie as to any claim of tortious liability against the school.
Further Reading
Moran, M. (2003) ‘Rethinking the Reasonable Person: An Egalitarian Reconstruction of the Objective
Standard’ Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Morgan, J. (2006) ‘The Rise and Fall of the General Duty of Care’ Professional Negligence, Vol. 22, No. 4,
p. 206.
Neyers, J. W., Chamberlain, E., Stephen, G. A., and Pitel, S. G. A. (Eds.) (2007) ‘Emerging Issues in
Tort Law’ Hart Publishing: Oxford.
Patten, K. (2006) ‘Limitation Periods in Personal Injury Claims—Justice Obstructed?’ Civil Justice
Quarterly , Vol. 25, Jul y, p. 349.
Online Resource Centre
www.oxfordtextbooks.co.uk/orc/marson2e/
Why not visit the Online Resource Centre and try the multiple choice questions associated with
this chapter to test your understanding of the topic. You will also find any relevant updates to
the law.
Further Rea in
F U R T H E R R E A D I N G 277